

On April 2nd, after a two-week trial, Craig was acquitted of all counts after two days of jury deliberations. Although some jurors later expressed misgivings about their decision, feeling that Craig probably was the shooter, they felt that there was too much doubt for conviction. Inconsistencies in the witnesses testimony, the lack of physical evidence tying Craig to the murders, and the unreliability of key witnesses who all had rap sheets of their own, all contributed to the not-guilty verdict. Other factors that didn't help were Schneider admitting to lying to a grand jury and sending text messages to Morris's sister asking for details of the crime so that they could get their testimony to match.
Reaction to the verdict has been mixed in the news and on Internet chat forums. Many are passionate about their opinion that a murderer walked free. Others are equally adamant that the system worked as it should with the not-guilty verdict being the end result of contradictory and sparse evidence. Whatever your opinion, the fact remains that not-guilty verdicts create as many questions as they do answers.
A lot of Internet posters have speculated that the eyewitnesses would have had more credibility if they had been charged as aiders and abettors for their roles in the crime. That begs the real question of whether the key witnesses were aiders and abettors or were merely present at the crime, which does not make them culpable under the law.
A not-guilty verdict is always a reminder to police and prosecutors that we don't make evidence; we only do what we can with the cards that we are dealt. However, it doesn't take the sting out of a "not guilty" verdict on a case like the East Mountain triple homicide.
Statements made in this post are my own and are not intended to reflect the views, opinions, or position of the Michigan Attorney General or the Michigan Department of Attorney General.
TweetHundreds gathered last Sunday at the site of the bombing to commemorate the day where 168 empty chairs sat on the grass in place of the building that once stood there. Loved ones of the victims and survivors read the names of each of those killed and the crowd observed 168 seconds of silence for each life lost.
Several pieces of important legislation were enacted by the U. S. government as a result of the bombing of the Murrah building and its aftermath. Among those, The Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, (AEDPA) was signed by Congress to "deter terrorism, provide justice for victims, provide for an effective death penalty, and for other purposes.
Because the trials of the perpetrators and conspirators were moved out of state (from Oklahoma to Denver, Colorado), President Clinton signed the Victim Allocution Clarification Act of 1997, which allowed victims of the Oklahoma City Bombing, and those of any future acts of violence, to observe and offer victim-impact testimony at trials.
Clinton stated that "when someone is a victim, he or she should be at the center of the criminal justice process, not on the outside looking in."
Timothy McVeigh (pictured left) was arrested hours after the bombing for driving without a license plate and for carrying a concealed weapon. At his trial, the prosecution stated that McVeigh's motivation for the horrific act of domestic terrorism was his hatred of the U. S. government, which grew in part from the incidents at Ruby Ridge, Idaho in 1992, and the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas in 1993. The April 19, 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing occured on the anniversay of the end of the 51-day seige in Waco in which 50 adults and 25 children died after federal law enforcement launched a fiery assault. McVeigh was executed by lethal injection at a U. S. penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana, on June 11, 2001. It was the first federal exection in 38 years.
Terry Nichols was tried twice, once by the federal government, and once by the state of Oklahoma. He was found guilty of the federal charges of conspiring to build a weapon of mass destruction and of eight counts of involuntary manslaughter of federal officers. He was sentenced to life without parole. Although the State of Oklahoma sought the death penalty for 161 counts of first-degree murder, the jury became deadlocked on the issue of death and Nichols was instead sentenced to 161 consecutive life terms without the possibility of parole.
This month also marks the tenth anniversary of the Columbine High School Massacre where teenagers Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris shot and killed 13 others before taking their own lives on April 20, 1999.
As the country observes the beginning of National Crime Victims' Rights Week today, I ask you to not only remember the victims of these and other highly publicized tragic crimes, but the hundreds of thousands of others—survivors, homicide victims, missing persons, and their families and loved ones left behind. To commemorate Crime Victims' Rights Week as well as the last week of Sexual Assault Awareness Month and Child Abuse Prevention Month, Women in Crime Ink will feature other observance posts over the next several days from our contributors and from you, our readers.
Rarely does a day go by when we are not inundated with the horrifying details of what some sexual predators are capable of doing to children, graphically laid out on shows such as Nancy Grace, Geraldo at Large, CNN News and local stations where we all live.
Victims are not taken at gun point. Instead predators are luring their young victims with a simple click of the mouse. Most parents remain computer illiterate, far behind their technology savvy children. Parents are not prepared to recognize the dangers waiting for their child on a computer or cell phone screen, similar to a one way mirror, into Hell.
As the Florida mother of 3 children, Jaemi Levine preached to each child the dangers waiting outside the walls of her 4-bedroom ranch home. Jaemi was a stay at home Mom, active in the P.T.A., Girl Scouts, and just about everything else related to her family. Her daughter Nicole had just celebrated her twelfth birthday. Nicole was your average pre-teen, playing the tuba in the high school band and a straight “A” student.
Jaemi was a vigilant parent. Always knowing at every moment where Nicole was and what she was doing and with whom, including monitoring her daughter’s online activities.
One night, Nicole went to hang out at a friend’s house to work on a report for school. While Nicole and her friends were on the computer, they took a break and headed onto a “Safe Site” approved for teen chat. Suddenly, up on the computer screen in an instant message, “Hi, I’m, lonely will you be my friend?”
Over the course of 3 weeks Nicole confessed private details to this new on-line friend of her life, the area she and her family lived in Florida where she attended Junior high school, to her favorite flavor of ice cream.
After gaining Nicole’s trust, the skilled child sexual predator convinced her they should get together and meet face to face.
Over the weekend Nicole asked her mother if she could walk to the bookstore 2 blocks from their home. " No Nicole, your sister is sick in bed and you know the rules about going anyplace by yourself. "Please Mom, Nicole begged, I'll only be gone for hour. I need to get a book for my homework assignment. After 15 minutes of debate her mother caved in to her daughters request. "Make sure you take your cell phone. If you are not back in exactly one hour, I will ground you for one week." Happily, Nicole kissed her mother goodbye and headed out the front door.
The hour passed, no Nicole. Frantically every 2 minutes Jaemi was calling Nicole’s cell phone, but she was not answering. Jaemi got into her car and drove to the bookstore and searched for her daughter. Jaemi continued to call and look for Nicole. Finally Nicole answered. She sounded strange. “Where are you?” her mother demanded. “Oh I’m almost home,” Nichole replied. But she was not. Jaemi called the cell phone again. It was the longest two hours of Jaemi’s life. Nicole walked out of the bookstore parking lot and into the car. Nicole was panicked and badly shaken. “I circled everywhere looking for you, who were you talking too?” Nicole had stared at the dashboard unable to look at her mother and respond. “Oh it was um, a 29 year-old man from Pakistan he just asked for directions.” Jaemi looked at her daughter in shock, “what if he had grabbed or hurt you?” Nicole tearfully replied, “I learned never to talk to older men on the computer.” Jaemi said, "my heart sunk down to my feet, knowing my daughter had already been raped."
Once inside the house, Jaemi Levine placed one call to 911 and the other to a friend of the family who was a child psychologist.
The day, the hour, the moment would forever be etched in the mind of both mother and daughter. First, police arrived and made a report followed by a detective removing Nicole's computer and taking it to an expert in capturing all conversations on the hard drive.
Two days later a Detective returned to Jaemi Levine's home with disturbing information. The 29-year old man from Pakistan was a known sexual predator who was part of a large human trafficking operation. They lure young girls. In Nicole's case, the man held her at knife point. This particular group of sexual predators video tape their victims (like Nicole) to show they are still virgins. And get the victim to meet them again where they are abducted and shipped overseas to a foreign country and sold as sex slaves.
Most young children are not as fortunate to escape with their life. Five years later, Nicole now 17-years old, speaks at schools presenting information about on-line safety and sexual predators.
And Jaemi Levine has worked to become a tireless advocate for families across the country, educating anyone whom invites her to speak in hopes that we read about one less tragedy with our morning coffee.
On Tuesday, April 28, 2009 Jaemi Levine, Founder of Mothers Against Predators, Inc., will be a guest on Justice Interrupted.
Courageous indeed.
With a foreword by Marc Klaas, founder and president of KlaasKids Foundation, this straightforward and clearly written guidebook answers one hundred of the most asked questions that Robin has encountered in her fifteen years of experience as a sex crimes prosecutor. From the definition of abuse to profiles of predators, to how to report an incident and to whom, Robin provides practical, reassuring, and appropriate information.
For ease of use, the book is organized into six major sections:
Predators and Child Molesters is already debuting to rave reviews:
“Finally! A hard-hitting Q&A on predators and child molesters. Sax's book is a must read for anyone concerned about the safety and well being of America's children. As a former felony prosecutor of crimes on children, this is Crime & Prevention 101 . . .”
Nancy Grace, host of CNN Headline News' Nancy Grace
"Child Molesters and Predators" answers everything you wanted to ask and tells everything you need to know to prevent your worst nightmare and possible lifelong torment for your child. Sax writes in an easy to read format providing practical answers for keeping youngsters safe. This is a must read for every parent or anyone who cares for kids.
Mark Goulston, Huffington Post
Robin Sax makes it clear that prosecuting children against possible sexual assault begins with every parent in the home. Teaching preventative measures should be as important as teaching children to dial 911.
Predators and Child Molesters is available in bookstores now and online. Robin Sax can be seen frequently as a legal commentator on CNN’s Nancy Grace, Larry King Live, and Fox News covering criminal cases and trials. You can also hear her weekly on Justice Interrupted Blogtalk Radio where she covers the latest news in crime with WCI contributors Susan Murphy-Milano and Stacy Dittrich. Robin Sax resides in California with her husband and three children.
Also out this month: Reaching The Bar: Stories of Women at All Stages of Their Law Career. A comprehensive look into the lives of women lawyers, each chapter is introduced by Robin Sax, who also edited Reaching the Bar.
Congratulations, Robin!
by Karen Borders, Guest Contributor
When did society force our innocent children to be treated so harshly and with such a lack of respect? Maybe it would be better to put them on the witness stand as they do in Canada and London. It is the parents who still “dangle their kids like carrots” to hurt the other parent.
Maturity is not often exhibited in family law court. It usually is put on the shelf while the adults—who once loved each other enough to marry and have children—display a pure hatred for one another. One might question if they were ever in the same relationship or had ever cared for each other. Divorce is ugly. What divorcing parents do to their children is even uglier.
I have seen this myself up-close and personal. I tried to be the better parent, to "get along.” The problem is that it takes two rational people to get along with one another for the benefit of the children. It is impossible to do, without the cooperation of a second party. One party can influence the children in a positive way and the other in a negative way, but how can the court tell who is providing which influence? That is the question the court deals with on a daily basis and this is what clogs the system.
The court decided to bring mental health professionals into the equation to try to determine the facts and what would be best for the family. The court calls this process a Child Custody Evaluation, referred to as a "730 Evaluation" in California. Court administrators attempt to ascertain what is really going on and where the children would be best suited to thrive. They also need to decide what is in the “best interest” of the children. We are still searching for how to reach that answer without being any closer to solving the problem after over 30 years of doing things the same old way.
The court sends family members to mental health providers to talk about their family issues and what is happening with their relationships. The evaluators are charged with the duty of figuring out what is going on within the family unit and then determining a child custody plan which they figure is in the “best interest” of the children.
The problem comes when there are any allegations of domestic violence, child abuse, or child sexual abuse. Then the evaluator needs to try to determine if the allegations are true or false. The next problem is the evaluators are not trained investigators and do not know how to investigate these criminal allegations nor do they have training in how to determine if their clients are untruthful.
Evaluators are trained to believe their client’s reality is what the client tells them and not to question what they are told. Therefore, when the evaluator believes what the client tells them, then the problem is that both parents must be considered to be telling the truth. When stories conflict, as they do more often than not, the end result is that the evaluator does not know who is telling the truth.
Then we get to the children. We tell children to tell the truth and try to teach them to tell the truth. But when we are dealing with divorce, the paradigm changes. When parents use their children, they talk to them about things which are inappropriate. They make comments that they want the kids to repeat to the evaluator who conducts the child custody evaluation. Then the children repeat some statements and forget to repeat others. The evaluator does not know what the truth is as s/he must accept statements from both sides as truth because s/he is unequipped to detect deception or to conduct an independent investigation.
Now some evaluators will use personality assessment testing and other measures for the parents involved in the divorce process. These tests show if there are any personality disorders, mental disorders, and sometimes they try to determine if there is a propensity to use alcohol or drugs. What happens after you find out this information? If one parent has a personality disorder or mental disorder, does that in and of itself preclude them from parenting their child? Of course not. There are other factors which have to be taken into consideration.
If a parent has a propensity to use alcohol and/or drugs, how do you prove they are using or that it is affecting their parenting? Parents generally don’t admit they abuse alcohol or drugs, so the testing would not be useful to the evaluator.
The evaluator then has to write a report to the court, which has recommendations on parenting plans and schedules. The report is used by the judge to assist in making the decision about the visitation. Unfortunately, this does not solve the issues, and the parent who is not happy with the results can request their case be evaluated by another specialist. In California, this is called a 733 Evidence Code-Review of a Child Custody Evaluator’s Report.
Most often, evaluations are requested by one or the other parent on a yearly basis for one reason or another. This can cause a backlog in the court system and is not very efficient, as it is costly and does not accomplish the intended purpose. On the other side, the children get subjected to being put in the middle of the parents' ongoing battle and can find stability difficult, if not impossible.
Is an evaluator qualified to answer or to investigate those allegations when they believe whatever their clients tell them is true? Can they determine the truth from a lie or are they in place to put together parenting plans?
Evaluators were never put in place to investigate allegations of abuse, yet they deal with these issues on a daily basis. Children are placed in their care and their futures in their hands, when the larger issues of their safety and welfare must be addressed. If an evaluator is not able to determine if the abuse allegations are true or false, then how can they determine a parenting plan?
When evaluators cannot determine what is really going on in the family, they are more likely to keep the case open for further evaluation, to review the family at a later date to see if there have been any changes. The problem with this plan is if the abuse allegations are not true, the children are then being subjected to being estranged from the alleged abusive parent without any justification. This can cause a parent to be away from their children for upwards of a year without any evidence against them. Then if they somehow get visitation after that time period, they have to be reunified with their children who they have now been alienated from due to the extensive time period apart.
Child Protective Services (CPS) is often involved. However, sometimes there is not any physical evidence to prove or file a criminal case. This does not mean the abuse did not occur. CPS might close their case "unsubstantiated," which simply means they could not prove or disprove the case.
These children and the possible domestic violence victims deserve to have an investigation to determine if the abuse did or did not occur, during the evaluation process. If domestic violence did occur, then there are specific court mandates which the judge must enforce. We are talking about people’s lives and the futures of the children. These decisions will affect them for the rest of their lives. This is not something to take lightly. It is something to take seriously and to put every effort into doing correctly and to the best of one’s ability.
The answer to the investigative needs for the family law courts is the Family Violence Risk Assessment (FVRA). The assessment is an investigative procedure which is able to investigate the allegations of domestic violence, child abuse, and child sexual abuse to determine the past, present, and potential future risk to the children and parents. The assessments provide evidence based reports in a timely manner, 6-8 weeks, as compared to the normal assessments which on average can take 4-6 months, or sometimes as long as 1 year or more. The assessments provide a final resolution and eliminate the need for expensive yearly annual evaluations.
The Family Violence Risk Assessment (FVRA) program is conducted by experienced investigators and mental health specialists, most Licensed Clinical Social Workers (LCSWs) and Marriage and Family Therapists (MFTs), all specifically trained in these fields. The program is conducted by a collaborative team under the supervision of John McLaughlin and myself. Combined, our firm has over 50 years' experience in law enforcement and mental health evaluations in family violence and child custody issues. The team also includes mental health professionals with Child Protective Services and other child welfare departments. Our experts have extensive experience testifying in criminal, civil, juvenile, and family courts, as well as forensic interviewing. The firm's team and its FVRA program qualify under the Domestic Relations Investigators, California Family Code 3110.
A Family Violence Risk Assessment is not a Child Custody Evaluation. However, we qualify as experts under Evidence Code 730. This is an investigative/assessment process rather than an evaluation. FVRA determines if there is a risk for future abuse or violence based on statistics and probability. It does not provide recommendations to a specific custody plan, but can be used in lieu of or as a compliment to a Child Custody Evaluation. Once there is a determination of risk, the Judicial Officer can then apply child custody plans based on established child custody guidelines.
These evaluations are not costly and are charged to the parents just like the Child Custody Evaluations. They actually end up costing less in the long run because it stops families from going through additional unnecessary evaluations over the years. Once a FVRA is conducted, there is no need to conduct another assessment because the risks to the children/parent(s) have already been established. This stops the game playing in family court and frees up court time for more important issues. This also helps to move the case along quicker, so the other issues can get resolved and the children have the stability they need regarding their living arrangements and visitation schedules.
There are some evaluators who recognize the value in our FVRA and use us in conjunction with their evaluations. This way they know if there is a risk to the children or either parent before they start their evaluation. They find this information invaluable to their evaluations and for setting up parenting plans.Karen Borders is a retired police officer from Palm Springs where she served for 22 years. Karen has made a lifetime career out of helping victims of domestic violence and abuse. Karen is the co-creator of the Family Violence Risk Assessment program, which is currently being used extensively in family law courts throughout Southern California. As president of Borders, McLaughlin & Associates, Karen provides evidence-based risk assessments in high-conflict family law matters.
Submit a crime-related blog for consideration. Become an instant Internet celeb and win a Justitia, our virtual version of an Oscar.
Send submissions to: yourturn_ink@yahoo.com
WELCOME TO THE INK WELL: Women in Crime Ink's reservoir for story ideas and general commentary.
Keep this space filled with your thoughts so contributors can dip their cyber quills into whatever crime or media issues interest you.
The Ink Well will on occasion host live chats with crime authors promoting their books.
Blog: |
Women in Crime Ink |
Topics: |
crime, justice, media |